What makes analog so analog?

[Lunch Money]

Not at all. As I said before, this is not only of importance if you actually create a feedback, but essential to the understanding of what the nature of analog soundcreation is. Like I said in the beginning, it may seem a bit esoteric for some, but its more like an attempt to explain it on an abstract level - which on the other hand is from where you have to explain phenomenons that most people only can describe as "I have the feeling that...". To go deeper into this we would have to discuss quantum mechanics here I guess. But that's exactly where it happens.

I disagree. I don't think the moment of feedback is where the esoteric and hard-to-define moment happens. I know that it's there, but I think you have little but faith in this observation. The nexus is elsewhere. Plus, I think that it's a mistake to hinge too much on the esoteric. In my experience, it's the act of putting faith into the "I can't describe it" sensation that is creating the sensation in the first place. The belief that the sound is different is what makes the sound different, if you catch my meaning.

I'm not saying that VA doesn't have a certain distance to go (and guitar amp sims, too!); however, complete faith in the distinctness and immutability of analog 'character' and 'warmth' is ultimately the only thing that will stand the test of time, while the sounds themselves are indistinguishible to human perception. Digital will also (some day) give us that sense of "pressure", even when audible sounds are not present.

Greg

[tony tony chopper]

If I record an analog synth at 96 kHz, it sounds smoother and more "analog like" to me than 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz does.

can you post one of those at 96khz?

[Robert Randolph]

If I record an analog synth at 96 kHz, it sounds smoother and more "analog like" to me than 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz does.

can you post one of those at 96khz?

Be nice to hear 44.1 and 96 to a/b.

Im tempted to do it myself even... so what lossy compression supports 96khz?

[meister eder]

I disagree. I don't think the moment of feedback is where the esoteric and hard-to-define moment happens. I know that it's there, but I think you have little but faith in this observation. The nexus is elsewhere. Plus, I think that it's a mistake to hinge too much on the esoteric. In my experience, it's the act of putting faith into the "I can't describe it" sensation that is creating the sensation in the first place. The belief that the sound is different is what makes the sound different, if you catch my meaning.

Ok now should we start a discussion about the word esoteric?
In my vocabulary esoteric means nothing but "not very common knowledge". And I was talking about quantum mechanics, too - not about belief. I am not a believer!
That's why I said it may seem to some a bit esoteric. But it's not, if you analyse things a little bit to a deeper point and not only scratch the surface.

[McLilith]

Digital will also (some day) give us that sense of "pressure", even when audible sounds are not present.

I sure hope that eveyone knows that I didn't mean that analog synths sound "analog" because they give me a feeling of "pressure" in my head.

The "feeling of pressure" story was just to give an example of sensing things above 20 kHz, when so many people mistakenly take for granted that nothing above 20 kHz is perceptible. I wish I had a more on-topic example to give everyone.

For what it's worth, digital sampling is already at the point where it can give me that "pressure" sensation without a noticeable "normal sound" being heard. Simply generate a "loud" 40 kHz wave at a 96 kHz sample rate.


take care,
McLilith

[Amberience]

Digital is what the designer/programmer intended it to be. Analog has imperfections because of the physical realm.

Thats the difference.

[mystahr]

Quite the interesting discussion.

I can only say I love true analog and it has caused me to take the hardware route more then the software route.

[Robert Randolph]

Digital will also (some day) give us that sense of "pressure", even when audible sounds are not present.

I sure hope that eveyone knows that I didn't mean that analog synths sound "analog" because they give me a feeling of "pressure" in my head.

The "feeling of pressure" story was just to give an example of sensing things above 20 kHz, when so many people mistakenly take for granted that nothing above 20 kHz is perceptible. I wish I had a more on-topic example to give everyone.

For what it's worth, digital sampling is already at the point where it can give me that "pressure" sensation without a noticeable "normal sound" being heard. Simply generate a "loud" 40 kHz wave at a 96 kHz sample rate.


take care,
McLilith

Most people generally say "hear". I have no trouble arguing hearing above 20khz.

Perception is a personal thing, as you do present it. When people make blanket statements like "it sounds better", then trouble ensues.

Honestly I still maintain 96khz is overkill, but 48 certainly isnt really enough. right in between is perfect.. where is it!

[Robert Randolph]

Digital is what the designer/programmer intended it to be.

You've never worked in synthedit then eh?

[Lunch Money]

Nah, no debate over the word esoteric. We both weight it differently, which is a common problem with linguistic communication. Now that I know what you meant by it, I can't argue about THAT, can I?

How about this, then--

The main premise is that digital cannot sound like analog.

Going through a list of things that could POSSIBLY be done with digital (even if it's not actually being done yet because of the restrictions of technology), it's safe to say that we'll be able to emulate or duplicate any and all of them, right down to the smallest transistor and the 'aging' process of analog technology. It's "possible" at least.

However, you have come across the one thing that is not and can NEVER be possible with digital, which is the moment of instantaneous feedback. No matter what, there will always always always be at least one sample stuck in between there. That's a fact, and I can't disagree with you there.

So, it follows from those premises that this is the reason, therefore, that digital can never truly be a replacement for analog.

All I'm saying is that you have to take the first premise as a given for that argument to work. You do; however I do not. Since I do not take the first premise as a given, I also don't have to take the moment of feedback as the missing link in the equation. I feel that it is outside of the argument (especially since synths don't use sympathetic feedback) and therefore not a part of the debate at all. The answer lies elsewhere, most likely in the limitations of current technology.

Greg

[tony tony chopper]

so what lossy compression supports 96khz?

just post wavs, they don't need to be that long


I wouldn't lossy-encode anything above 44khz, since the first things a lossy encoder would probably kill are things that humans can't hear.. like freqs above 20khz.

And you don't need to post the 48khz version, we can convert it ourselves. Since we're talking about playback and not recording here, if there's a difference in a 48khz recording, then the problem is with the recording device, not playback.

Finally we need something to play back over 20khz, which I don't have, but at least I'll be able to see what's in there on a spectrum display.

[McLilith]

Be nice to hear 44.1 and 96 to a/b.

Im tempted to do it myself even... so what lossy compression supports 96khz?

I would suggest sticking to a WAV format, and avoid the lossy formats. You'll never know exactly which coloration is from the lossy format and which coloration is from the different sample rate. I'll record a couple notes for you, but it might not be tonight. My equipment isn't handy at the moment.


take care,
McLilith

[Robert Randolph]

Be nice to hear 44.1 and 96 to a/b.

Im tempted to do it myself even... so what lossy compression supports 96khz?

I would suggest sticking to a WAV format, and avoid the lossy formats. You'll never know exactly which coloration is from the lossy format and which coloration is from the different sample rate. I'll record a couple notes for you, but it might not be tonight. My equipment isn't handy at the moment.


take care,
McLilith

errrrrr

it was a joke.

[Amberience]

Digital is what the designer/programmer intended it to be.

You've never worked in synthedit then eh?

Are you disagreeing with me? What do you think gives analog gear its qualities??

Analog gear works on electricity. Control voltages and the like. Vis-a-vis, they aren't perfect. There are blemishes in the sound, and this is why people love it so much. Because it sounds humane.

Its hard to get the same effect out of software that works by algorithm.

[Amberience]

I disagree. I don't think the moment of feedback is where the esoteric and hard-to-define moment happens. I know that it's there, but I think you have little but faith in this observation. The nexus is elsewhere. Plus, I think that it's a mistake to hinge too much on the esoteric. In my experience, it's the act of putting faith into the "I can't describe it" sensation that is creating the sensation in the first place. The belief that the sound is different is what makes the sound different, if you catch my meaning.

Ok now should we start a discussion about the word esoteric?
In my vocabulary esoteric means nothing but "not very common knowledge". And I was talking about quantum mechanics, too - not about belief. I am not a believer!
That's why I said it may seem to some a bit esoteric. But it's not, if you analyse things a little bit to a deeper point and not only scratch the surface.

esoteric is a semantic of rare.